Representation-tame algebras need not be homologically tame

DOI10.1007/S10468-016-9605-8zbMath1362.16023arXiv1509.07945OpenAlexW2963603687MaRDI QIDQ312574

Birge Huisgen-Zimmermann

Publication date: 16 September 2016

Published in: Algebras and Representation Theory (Search for Journal in Brave)

Full work available at URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/1509.07945

zbMATH Keywords

biserial algebrasfinitistic dimension conjectures

Mathematics Subject Classification ID

Representation type (finite, tame, wild, etc.) of associative algebras (16G60) Representations of associative Artinian rings (16G10) Syzygies, resolutions, complexes in associative algebras (16E05) Homological dimension in associative algebras (16E10)

Related Items (1)

Are special biserial algebras homologically tame?

Cites Work

• Unnamed Item
• Unnamed Item
• Unnamed Item
• Generic representation theory of quivers with relations.
• Predicting syzygies over monomial relations algebras
• Tame biserial algebras
• Blocks of tame representation type and related algebras
• Homological domino effects and the first finitistic dimension conjecture
• The indecomposable representations of the dihedral 2-groups
• The indecomposable modular representations of certain groups with dihedral Sylow subgroup
• A homological bridge between finite and infinite-dimensional representations of algebras
• Radical embeddings and representation dimension.
• Finitistic Dimension and a Homological Generalization of Semi-Primary Rings
• Auslander-reiten sequences with few middle terms and applications to string algebrass
• The supremum of the difference between the big and little finitistic dimensions is infinite
• The homology of string algebras I
• INDECOMPOSABLE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE LORENTZ GROUP

This page was built for publication: Representation-tame algebras need not be homologically tame